At a Tribunal hearing on Wednesday the Chair brought to my attention a recent case which directed that IS decisions do not have to bind HB decisions, i.e. that even though a claimant could be successful in, say, a LTAHAW appeal in respect of IS, this might not necessarily be the case when it came before a HB or CTB Tribunal hearing.
Does anyone know what this case was please? Thanks.

Hi Rachel, I know this is quite a bit out of date but I was just going through my bookmarked queries. Did you ever find out about this?

Are you talking about Hamilton? That was the case where it was decided that the LA should be able to make it's own decision regarding a case where IS was still in payment. It was said that if the council had evidence to suggest it should not have been (ie excess capital, working in excess of 16 hrs etc) then an assessment could be made on the evidence the LA held.

This would apply to LTs, I would suggest that in the majority of cases however a no decision from the IS Decision Makers would very much weaken an LAs case it they chose to press on regardless.

Thanks OwenK. What's the "LTs" you mention ? Also can you give more info so I can find it

Sue

Sorry Sue, LT (Living Togethers - LTAHAW(CP)).

Case is an appeal case R vs South Ribble Borough Council (Exparte Hamilton) (ref QBCOF 99/1021/4)

Basically South Ribble had refused a benefit claim because of undeclared capital even though IS had been awarded. On appeal it was found they could do this and IS should not stop a LA making it's own assessment if needed.

Hope that helps

Ah yeah now I see....

Thanks v much for the case details.

Hi
Could the chairman have ben referring to CH/3736/2006, just posted on Rightsnet briefcase?

Woo Hoo, I've just this second finished taking instructions from a client with same circs so this is extremely timely.

Thank you.
Sue